Democracy: The What's Left of It Edition (Part 1)

Democracy - a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. - Merriam Webster Dictionary

Think you live in a democracy? Think again. Yes, the most egregious offense against democracy - slavery - was officially ended long ago. All citizens, including women, over the age 18 now have the right to vote thanks to some Constitutional amendments.   On paper, the United States appears to qualify as a democracy.  In reality, American democracy is now under assault. Attacks against the "supreme power.. vested in the people" and against "periodically held free elections" have been ongoing for a long time. But recent Supreme Court decisions, legislative actions at the State level, the unchecked influence of special interest money, the rampant disregard for the truth, the abuse of the filibuster, and the continuing excesses of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act have made a mockery of the concept.

Over the next two posts, I'll present my personal top 10 list for the assault on democracy in America. Feel free to add your own or reorder as you see fit.

Numbers 10 through 6 in the assault on democracy:

#10 - Disparity in the distribution of wealth

In this country, elections are almost always determined by the amount of money spent during a campaign. In 2008 elections. for example, "in 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics." The interests of the ruling and contributing classes are well represented; those of the not-so-well-off, less so. How else can you explain the opposition to tax increases on the wealthiest in society and the demand that benefits be taken from the less well off so that we can balance the budget?

#9 - Misinformed citizenry

An informed citizenry is critical to the functioning of a democracy. Corporate media misrepresentations of the facts (think Fox News viewers who thought that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9/11 attacks) and government secrecy and distortions (think pre-Iraq invasion intelligence reports and non-existent WMD) are the primary bad actors. Antidotes to this toxic misinformation: teach critical thinking in the schools, support organizations like FactCheck.org.

#8 - Government Spying

Government spying on its own citizens - either warrantless or by using overly broad warrants - has no place in a democracy. It is part and parcel of totalitarian regimes. Germany's current president Joachim Gauck, who helped expose the workings of East Germany's secret police, said whistleblowers like U.S. fugitive Edward Snowden deserved respect for defending freedom. Gauck knows of what he speaks. He lived in communist East Germany before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Instead of "respect for defending our freedom", our government prosecutes and punishes those who, like Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden, shine a light on these undemocratic goings-on. Where will it end? Who knows? Just today a powerful NSA tool has been unveiled. As reported in The Guardian on July 31: "A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden." See the Guardian article for more details on this latest revelation ("XKeyscore").

#7 - Special interest money

When 80-90% of the public favors a piece of legislation and it is not passed, you know something is wrong in the democracy. In one of the most egregious examples of this, the NRA's political money was enough to kill universal background checks for gun purchases in the Senate. If the filibuster had been broken in the Senate, what do you think the chances for passage would have been in the House where Republicans hold a 34 vote majority? In a political system where money wins elections, where politicians must raise inordinate amounts to compete, where special interest groups are free to lie and distort at will, we should not be surprised at such outcomes. 

 

#6 - Third-party political attack ads

Considering the role of political advertising in the outcome of elections, you would think that there would be some control over lying in attack ads. Unfortunately there is none. An interest group can pretty much make up anything they want without ever being held accountable. Combine this "license to lie" with the shielding of the names of supporters of these shadow organizations and you've got a powerful tool for the hate and fear mongers to use.

Democracy - The What's Left of It Edition (Part 2)

This is the second post on the state of our democracy.  In the July 31 post, I listed my personal choices of the #10 through #6 threats to American democracy.   To wit: (10) Wealth disparity, (9) Misinformed citizenry, (8) Government spying, (7) Special interest money, (6) Political attack ads.  Concluding the countdown, here are the top five attacks on democracy in this country.

#5 - The Filibuster

The 60 vote requirement to break a Senate filibuster is the equivalent of 9 stolen elections.  Instead of the majority needing 51 votes to pass legislation, they need 60.  The filibuster's original purpose - preventing the hasty but perhaps unwise action of the majority - has been distorted and abused in an unprecedented fashion in the past several years after the election of Barack Obama. When first conceived, the filibuster required Senators to actually speak about the legislation under consideration. The primary purpose of the now non-talking filibuster as wielded by Senate Republicans today has been to block Presidential nominations (both judicial and executive) and to block legislation supported by the majority of the American people (e.g., universal background checks for gun purchases). Since Republicans lost the Senate in 2006, there have been 425 cloture motions. Cloture motions only represent the attempts to break the filibuster. Sometimes the majority will not even get that far. The Senate can change its own rules. Eliminating the filibuster altogether would be the right (democratic) thing to do. Failing that, there should be limits placed on debate. Senators need to talk to the issue and after a given number of hours of debate be required to give an up or down vote.

#4 - Congressional district gerrymandering

 

One man/woman, one vote, right? Well, thanks to the magic of gerrymandering of Congressional districts by state legislatures, that isn't always the case. Boundaries are often redrawn to give an advantage to the party in power in the state. Republicans have been excellent at it, taking full advantage of the most recent census and their victories in the 2010 elections. As noted on the PolicyMic website: "The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) has an agenda. It has been costly but its goal is simple: Get more congressional seats without actually winning them. This wildly undemocratic goal has been successfully pursued in seven states: Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio." In the current version of the 113th do-nothing Congress, Republicans hold a 34 vote majority. Yet nationwide, Republican House candidates received fewer votes than the Democrats in the 2012 elections. So how did they end up with ~54% of the House seats when they had less than 50% of the vote? I've created this chart from the PolicyMic post that goes some way towards explaining it.

State	Dem Popular vote	Rep Popular vote	House seats Dems	House seats Reps
North Carolina	51 pct	49 pct	4	9
Michigan	52 pct	47 pct	5	9
Wisconsin	51 pct	49 pct	3	5
Pennsylvania	50.65%	49.34%	5	13
Florida	48 pct	52 pct	10	17
Ohio	47 pct	53 pct	4	12
Virginia	49 pct	51 pct	3	8

For these seven gerrymandered states, Republicans were awarded 73 House seats; Democrats, 34 - a 39 vote margin when the popular vote was nearly evenly split.

The next step in the Republican plan is to try to pass "electoral college" legislation in states they control but which have typically voted for Democrats in national elections. This scheme would award electoral votes according to who wins the Congressional district rather than the popular vote across the state. Had this been the case in 2012 with the gerrymandered districts, we would be talking about President Romney's policies today even though Obama received more than 50% of the popular vote nationwide.

#3 - SCOTUS' Citizens United ruling on corporate "free speech"

SCOTUS' infamous Citizens United decision gave corporations the status of persons - at least as far as freedom of speech goes. The decision eliminated the ban on political spending by corporations and unions. As summarized on the Center for Public Integrity's webpage on the subject: "The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates." A companion ruling several weeks later in Federal court (SpeechNow.org) decided that limits on individual contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional. It further allows non-profits and so-called "social welfare organizations" ( aka 501(c)(4)), such as business leagues, to keep their donor lists secret. And what was the result? "The 2012 election was the most expensive and least transparent presidential campaign of the modern era." The flood of super-PAC and "social welfare group" money was astounding. And it was mainly spent in opposition to candidates. 266 Super-PAC's spent $546.5 million dollars during the 2012 Presidential election cycle. More than half of the Super-PAC money ($290 million) was spent trying to defeat just one candidate - Barack Obama. Then there is the "dark money" from social welfare organizations and non-profits. Dark money is so-named because unlike PAC's, these organizations do not have to reveal their donors. Overall, dark money spent on the 2012 elections totaled $300 million. The financing of election campaigns is totally out-of-control thanks to these Supreme Court and lower court rulings. Several states have begun working on a Constitutional Amendment that would overturn Citizens United. This appears to be the only way out of the morass - both on a national and state level. It's obvious that there will be no relief from the current Supreme Court, who saw fit in their wisdom to overturn a 100 year-old Montana law limiting individual campaign contributions in February 2012.

#2 - SCOTUS destroys the Voting Rights Act

This has been previously blogged (June25, 2013 SCOTUS: R.I.P. Voting Rights Act) so I'll just sum up a few salient points here. Justice Ginsburg's dissent said it well: "The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective," Ginsburg wrote. "The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclear­ance is no longer needed." The provision has proven "enormously successful" in increasing minority registration and access to the ballot and preventing a "return to old ways," Ginsburg said. Even in jurisdictions where discrimination may not be overt, "subtle methods" have emerged to diminish minority turnout, such as racial gerrymandering. With the House in Republican hands and Mitch "Mr. Filibuster" McConnell leading the Senate Republicans, Sections 4 and 5 will not be rewritten by Congress in the foreseeable future. The decision has unleashed what MoJo blogger Kevin Drum describesas a "GOP feeding frenzy". The North Carolina legislature recently passed the worst voter suppression law in the country. For a complete listing of the provisions of this incredible attack on the right to vote see Ari Berman's post on the Moyers & Company website.  Berman's post points out that "Six Southern states have passed or implemented new voting restrictions since the Supreme Court’s decision last month invalidating Section 4 of the VRA, which will go down in history as one of the worst rulings in the past century."  The right to vote is the most fundamental and distinguishing feature of a democracy. A constitutional Amendment guaranteeing all citizens the right to vote is needed if we are to ensure democracy's survival.

And the #1 threat to American democracy is....state voter suppression laws.

For the most part, Republican voter suppression laws did not succeed in the 2012 elections - certainly not in their main objective: to defeat Barack Obama.  Aimed at denying the vote to traditionally Democratic voters, these laws were a combination of overly restrictive voter ID laws, reductions in early voting days, limitations on voter registration drives, and elimination of or severe restrictions on provisional balloting - what happens when you show up at the wrong polling place. These throw backs to the now unconstitutional poll taxes of yesteryear were overcome by a combination of judicial action in state and Federal courts and executive action (enforcing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) and a massive turnout effort on the part of Democrats. And a good thing they were. Based on the Brennan Center for Justice's October 2011 analysis, the laws in place by year end 2011 would have made it "significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012." States implementing these restrictive voter ID and registration laws "will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency." This figure of 171 electoral votes was revised upwards to 189 in a March 2012 update.  Democracy escaped Republican clutches this time but in 2014 and 2016, we may not be so fortunate. North Carolina recently enacted the most restrictive voting law in the country in the aftermath of SCOTUS' gutting of the Voting Rights Act.   (If you haven't gone to the Moyers & Company website, here's another chance - North Carolina really has passed a most incredible law.)  Five other Southern states have done likewise.  And if someone without Obama's drawing power and organizational savvy becomes the Democratic candidate, the laws will certainly have their desired effect. The best short-term hope to blunt this blatant attack on voting rights will be the Administration's challenging of the voter ID laws. They'll need to spend a lot more effort on this now that SCOTUS has effectively destroyed the Voting Rights Act .
 

Many of the problems affecting our democracy are rooted in our election laws and the way we finance public elections. Under the current system, money wins elections. Period. Public financing of all Federal elections has no chance of being enacted for now.  Nor is there any chance of bi-partisan reform of existing laws passing the obstructed 113th Congress. So, in the meantime, we need to take our gains, limited as they are by the Citizens United decision, and defend our rights, as difficult as it may be, wherever we can. In the end, it may be down to a constitutional amendment to protect the right to vote - this most basic right of a citizen of a democracy.

Saturday Round Up - July 6, 2013

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream media.  Today we look at Wednesday's ouster of Egypt's President Morsi by the Egyptian military.  Sources include The Guardian, BBC News, Al Jazeera and Haaretz; and US mainstream media NY Times and The Atlantic.

On Wednesday evening, the Egyptian military deposed democratically elected Islamist President Mohamed Morsi after millions of Egyptians demonstrated for his removal, "claiming he had arrogated power, neglected the economy, and worsened divisions in society." [NYTimes]  While anti-Morsi demonstrators rejoiced in the streets, reaction from world leaders was mixed and uneasy.  BBC News reported  British foreign secretary William Hague as saying the UK "will work with the people in authority in Egypt" but condemned the ousting of its president as "a dangerous thing" and US President Barack Obama saying he was "deeply concerned" by the latest turn of events and called for a swift return to civilian rule.[BBC News] [Photo: Dallas Morning News]


 Al Jazeera summarized the reactions of other world leaders in a post on Thursday: the EU called for a "rapid return to democracy"; German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the military intervention was "a major setback for democracy in Egypt" and called for "dialogue and political compromise"; Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Syria supported the new government - with Syria's President Assad stating that the military intervention means the end of "political Islam" and that this is the "fate of anyone in the world who tries to use religion for political or factional interests."; Iran, Tunisia, and Turkey spoke in support of ousted President Morsi and expressed disappointment at the intervention.

The Guardian reported on Thursday that supporters of the ousted president would take "to the streets after Friday prayers following a series of raids and arrests that decimated the Muslim Brotherhood's senior ranks and consolidated the miltary's hold on the country." The widespread crackdown was launched by Egypt's interim president Adly Mansour even as he reached out to the Brotherhood, calling them "part of the fabric of Egyptian society." On Friday Al Jazeera reported that "at least three supporters of deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi were killed by gunfire as a crowd of several hundred tried to march towards the military barracks in Cairo where he is believed to be held." Al Jazeera also reported in the same post that Egyptian state television said that Mansour had dissolved parliament by decree. On Friday Haaretz covered a Reuters and DPA report : "Egypt has indefinitely closed the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip following attacks on security forces in northern Sinai, a security official said Friday...The crossing was opened in 2011 following the ouster of Egyptian president Hosny Mubarak, whose administration opposed the Hamas rulers in Gaza, and helped Israel to enforce a blockade on the enclave."

Saturday morning Al Jazeera reported on the aftermath of widespread clashes in Egypt as supporters of the deposed president demonstrated in the streets Friday night: "A tense calm has descended on Egypt following a night of fierce clashes between supporters and opponents of the ousted president Mohamed Morsi.  At least 30 people were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in the violence that erupted on Friday and continued through the night.  A coalition of conservative groups led by Muslim Brotherhood has vowed further demonstrations on Saturday, raising fears of renewed violence."

New elections have been pledged by the military and Western leaders are hoping that this occurs as quickly as possible. However, as of this writing, no specific date has been set for these elections.  This is a test for democracy in the Middle East.  Can a government move from authoritarian rule to democracy seamlessly in one election? Is the Egyptian experience unique - in that Morsi, in the words of US Senator Patrick Leahy, had "squandered an historic opportunity, preferring to govern by fiat rather than work with other political parties." [reported in The Atlantic website] - or is it indicative of things to come in other Arab Spring countries?

Critical Decision Time at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear two cases in the coming months that could set back the United States' standing as a modern democracy.  The right-wing activist judges on the court will have the opportunity to overturn both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the federal campaign contribution limitations on individuals.  After Citizens United which did away with limits on corporate and labor union contributions, this additional one-two punch to our democracy would set us even further down the road to a plutocracy. 

The Voting Rights Act was one of the most palpable results of the civil rights movement of the late 1950's and early 1960's.  In her excellent analysis in yesterday's New York Times, Linda Greenhouse asks: "How can it be that one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement, a provision upheld on four previous occasions by the Supreme Court and re-enacted in 2006 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress (98-0 in the Senate, 390-33 in the House), a law that President George W. Bush urged the justices to uphold again four years ago in one of his final acts in office, a law that has demonstrably defeated myriad efforts both flagrant and subtle to suppress or dilute the African-American vote, is now hanging by a thread?" 

And what a thin thread that is.  In his opinion on an earlier Voting Rights Act case (2009) involving an election district in Austin, Texas, Chief Justice Roberts stated that "things have changed in the south".  Fortunately the Court did not at that time overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  This time around, when the Court hears Shelby County, Alabama petition, we may not be so fortunate. 

Section 5, the pre-clearance provision, requires that the United States Department of Justice or a panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia "preclear" any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting..." in any "covered jurisdiction."  Covered jurisdictions are those with a history of past voting discrimination and in which less than 50% of the population was registered to vote in 1964.  Because of their Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and the jury-rigged literacy tests with their so called "grandfather clauses", many Southern states require pre-clearance before they can change their voting laws.  Thing of the past, you say?  Just consider the voter suppression laws that numerous Republican-controlled states tried to enact this past election cycle.  Texas' voter suppression law was invalidated before the November election because it was not granted pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. 

The Voting Rights Act has done enormous good in allowing all citizens to exercise their right to vote with language that mirrors the 15th Amendment . That Amendment, ratified in 1870, provided that, "The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Let's hope the current Supreme Court keeps it that way.

Alabama also plays a role in the case arguing against aggregate spending limits for individuals.  The case is brought by Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama man, and, surprise, surprise, the Republican National Committee. They argue that the current aggregate limits for a two-year cycle , $46,200 for contributions to candidates and $70,800 for contributions to groups, are too low.  As noted by Adam Liptik in the New York Times on February 19: "Should the court agree that those overall limits are unconstitutional, however, its decision could represent a fundamental reassessment of a basic distinction established in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, which said contributions may be regulated more strictly than expenditures because of their potential for corruption."  Is there any hope at all that this Court, responsible for declaring corporations persons in Citizens United and for striking down campaign finance laws in Vermont (2006) and Montana (2012), will do the right thing for the democracy and prevent the further incursion of Big Money into the political process?

At a time when the influence of money in politics is so overwhelming that even common-sense gun control legislation is bottled up indefinitely in Congress, at a time when Republican governors and legislatures seem hell-bent on denying people their right to vote, the Supreme Court can strike a blow for democracy by holding the line on these two cases.  The Court either can do what is good for the country or it can agree with the right-wing ideologues that have dominated the political conversation for more than 30 years.  These cases will be a test of how far we've gone down the road to plutocracy and how far we've strayed from protecting citizens' right to vote.  I cannot say that I am hopeful.

OWS Politics

Unless OWS gets seriously involved in dislodging the Republicans from office in 2012 - their majority in the House and their strangle hold on the Senate- none of OWS' complaints or issues will be addressed for the foreseeable future.  At least with the Democrats in power, there is an outside chance that some of the most pressing problems facing the country will be ameliorated if not solved. 

The Republicans' current opposition to the extensions of the payroll tax reduction and to unemployment benefits (without further cuts to the social safety net rather than taxing the wealthiest Americans) should show everyone in the 99% that they are not on our side at all.   The OWS movement says they are non-partisan but a look at the differences between the ideologies of the Republicans and Democrats will show why this should not be so. 

George Lakoff summarizes this beautifully today in the Huffington Post in an appeal to OWS to get involved in the 2012 elections.  For the Left, "American democracy is about citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that care."  A strong private sector depends on a strong public sector, on a strong commons.  For the Right, "democracy is about citizens only taking care of themselves, about personal and not social responsibility.  According to right-wing morality, the successful are by definition the moral; the one percent are taken to be the most moral."   

In recent years, the political conversation has been dominated by the heavily financed right wing echo chamber.  Now is the time to shift the conversation away from privilege, greed and fear and to a better understanding of what American democracy really should be all about.  Now is the time to get involved in the electoral process or forever hold your peace.

R.I.P. - Campaign Finance Reform

In a 5-4 vote last week, the Roberts Court sounded the death knell of campaign finance reform with its McCutcheon v. FEC ruling.  "The Supreme Court...continued its abolition of limits on election spending, striking down a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle."  [NYT, April 2]  If Citizens United opened the door to unlimited campaign spending, McCutcheon blows the roof off. 

“There is no right more basic in our democracy,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the opening of his opinion for the court in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, “than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”  [NYT, April 2].  Hmm...I really wish he had said the right to vote rather than the right to contribute as much money as you want to as many people as you want.


The response to the ruling of the conservative plurality was about as expected - praised by the right and scorned by the center and left.  The Court's narrow definition of what constitutes "corruption or the appearance of corruption" bears special scrutiny.  The conservative majority on the Court reverted to an interpretation more suited to the Gilded Age in requiring quid pro quo bribery to be the low bar definition of corruption. 

Justice Breyer's dissent is a masterpiece.  "We specifically rejected efforts to define “corruption” in ways similar to those the plurality today accepts...Just as troubling to a functioning democracy as classic quid pro quo corruption is the danger that office­holders will decide issues not on the merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the officeholder.”  The Daily Kos has a good writeup on Breyer's dissent.

Here are excerpts from some of the commentaries.

The Supreme Court...continued its crusade to knock down all barriers to the distorting power of money on American elections. In the court’s most significant campaign-finance ruling since Citizens United in 2010, five justices voted to eliminate sensible and long-established contribution limits to federal political campaigns.  [NYTimes, April 2]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned yet another federal law meant to check corruption and influence-peddling in national politics. The ruling shows two things: The Roberts Court’s destructive view on these matters wasn’t changed by the backlash to its Citizens United holding, and Congress must respond by designing new rules that can pass the court’s overly skeptical review.[Washington Post, April 2]

One of the best commentaries is from Dahlia Lithwick at Slate:
Without even acknowledging that it is doing so, the Roberts Five has overturned 40 years of policy and case law, under an earnest plea about the rights of the beleaguered donors who simply want to spend $3.6 million on every election cycle....I worry that the court has located itself so outside the orbit of the 99 percent that it simply doesn’t matter to the five conservatives in the majority that the American public knows perfectly well what bought government looks like and that Breyer is describing a level of cynicism that has already arrived. Worse still, I worry that it matters very little to them that we will stop voting, donating, participating, or caring about elections at all in light of this decision to silence us yet further. In which case McCutcheon is a self-fulfilling prophecy in exactly the way Breyer predicts: Money doesn’t just talk. It also eventually forces the public to understand that we don’t much matter. It silences...

I hate to take issue with the optimism of the Washington Post editorial.  I can't imagine any campaign financing rule changes or laws coming out of Congress that would pass muster before the conservatives on the court.  After all, they think that corporations have the rights of persons and that money given to politicians is free speech. 

Until there is a liberal majority on the Court, the only way to reverse the poisoning of our democracy caused by Citizens United and McCutcheon is by a constitutional amendment.  To propose an amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress (or a request from two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a national convention).  Then three-quarters of the states will need to ratify it.  It's a tough, drawn out task but there has been some momentum underway since Citizens United - as of now 16 states have passed resolutions calling to overturn Citizens United.  Rick Weiland, the Democratic candidate for Senate in South Dakota has even proposed wording for such an amendment. "So that the votes of all, rather than the wealth of the few, shall direct the course of this Republic, Congress shall have the power to limit the raising and spending of money with respect to federal elections."  Sounds good to me.

Links
List of passed State Resolutions to reverse Citizens United [United for the People webpage]

Stealing an Election

The most fundamental right in a democracy is the right to vote.  That right is under severe and organized attack across the country.  Under the guise of preventing voter fraud (which is almost completely non-existent in the United States), voter ID laws have been passed in 32 states and are in effect in 30 of them as of this writing.  (Wisconsin's law was declared unconstitutional and Mississippi's law requires implementing legislation as well as pre-clearance under Section 5 of the 1964 Voting Rights Act.)

These voter ID laws have a single purpose - to suppress the vote of those segments of the population most likely to vote for Democrats.  For these are the segments of the population least likely to have the required ID's - elderly, low-income, students, African-Americans. Fifteen to twenty-five percent of these groups do not have state-issued ID.

The potential disenfranchisement is the greatest since the infamous Jim Crow laws were overturned both in court cases and by the 1964 Voting Rights Act.  The Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law examined the 19 laws and 2 executive orders in 14 states that enacted voter ID measures in 2011. The Center estimated that 5 million voters could be prevented from voting in 2012 because of these 2011 laws alone.  If we look at the bigger nation-wide picture, as many as 21 million Americans lack state-issued ID. 

Voter ID laws pose as great a threat to our democracy as the Citizens United decision.  But all is not lost yet.  A number of groups (e.g., AFL-CIO, United Steel Workers union) are working to inform voters of the impact and the ACLU has mounted several legal challenges.  A number of Southern states must have the laws pre-cleared by the Dept of Justice under the Voting Rights Act. 

If the legal challenges fail, it will be necessary to help those without ID's get the required ID's.  Unfortunately, there appears to be no national effort to do this.  All the apples are now being placed in the judicial cart. 

At the least, we need to stay informed and know the voter requirements in our own state.  The National Conference of State Legislatures' website has details on the requirements of each state and updates on the current status of the laws.  Take a look and make sure you understand what you need to bring to the polls in November.  If you don't have it, get it.

People have died for the right to vote. Now. because of an organized conservative effort, this right is being taken from those whose voices most need to be heard.   Let's hope this latest challenge to democracy in America is overcome.  If not, the truest and biggest voter fraud of the 21st century will be effected on November 6.  Votes will have been denied and the election will be stolen.

Further reading:
Center for American Progress post on AlterNet, April 4, 2012
Update - interesting discussion too.  People are looking for ways to help.
MoveOn's Daily Share for 5/3/12

Keystone State is Key

Wednesday, a Republican judge in Pennsylvania denied the request for an injunction to stop Pennsylvania's voter ID law from going into effect. This was done in spite of the acknowledgement of all involved with the case that in person voting fraud is practically nonexistent in Pennsylvania. Although the plaintiffs are filing an appeal with the 6 member state Supreme Court, they need four votes to overturn Judge Simpson's ruling. Three of the PA Supreme Court justices are Republican and three Democratic. I don't hold much hope for the appeal to be successful. We've already seen what an ideological, politically motivated court can do – from the denial of the Bush Florida recount to Citizens United. I will be totally surprised if one Republican judge votes on the side of fairness, on the side of the defining right of a democracy.

There is no question but that this law, as others passed in states with Republican-held state legislatures, is intended solely to suppress the vote of minorities and other Democratic voters. These are the voters least likely or able to have the ID's or afford them or, in the case of elderly voters, obtain the birth certificates and other documents necessary. Some grassroots efforts are being started by Al Sharpton and others to help the voters get their ID's. The task they are facing in Pennsylvania is monumental – up to 750,000 registered voters who voted in the 2008 election could be denied their right to vote. All told there are a million registered voters in Pennsylvania without the required ID and one third of registered voters are unaware that an ID law even exists. And there are just 82 days to get the job done – i.e., more than 12,000 people per day need to be getting their ID's.

How important is this? Well, in 2008 Obama took Pennsylvania by 600,000 votes. The math is clear – if 750,000 overwhelmingly Democratic voters were denied their right to vote, John McCain would have carried Pennsylvania in 2008. The race in 2012 is much closer – Obama is not running against the backdrop of the huge Bush failures this time. If these votes are denied or if voters can't get their ID's, Romney will win Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is critical for Obama's re-election. Obama will not win the Presidency if he loses Pennsylvania.

NY Times columnist Charles Blow has written several insightful columns on the upcoming election recently. In an August 1 blog, he pointed out how the voter suppression laws will, at a minimum, hold down turnout and that polls showing an Obama lead, especially in the many swing states with voter suppression laws, need to be taken with a large grain of salt. In a July 27 column, he notes that Democratic voters are not as enthusiastic about going to the polls as they were in 2008 or even 2004. That column also has some interesting statistics on the money unleashed by Citizen's United and the potential impact of the voter suppression laws. States that have passed restrictive voting laws account for 214 electoral votes – about 79% of the amount needed to win the Presidency.

The right to vote has come under its worst, most outrageous attack since before the Civil Rights era. This has been a well-funded, organized effort to deny legitimate voters one of the most important rights in a democracy. Republicans should be ashamed and Democrats should be outraged. Outraged enough to go to the polls in droves. Get your ID if you can but go to the polls even if you can't get your ID. Demand that your vote be taken and counted. Let the state of Pennsylvania (or any other democracy-deficient state) prove you are not who you say you are.

A Progressive State of the Union

President Obama is giving his sixth state of the union Tuesday. Things haven't quite worked out as hoped for our President. Partly his fault, partly that of a resurgent and extremist right-wing. We are where we are so there's no sense thinking of what might have been. Nevertheles, here is the State of the Union you won't be hearing tomorrow night.

First let's talk about the situation here at home.

Let's get one thing straight at the outset - the problem is not the deficit. It never has been and never will be. The problem is the lack of jobs. The problem is an overbloated military budget and our overseas misadventures. The problem is a tax structure that taxes incomes of the wealthiest at one of the lowest rates in the developed world. The problem is the impact of money on elections and the influence of lobbyists on legislation to serve their interests and not those of the nation. The problem is that in this, the wealthiest nation on earth, we have 46 million living below the poverty line, 49 million living in food insecure households, and nearly 50 million without health insurance.

The recession continues for many. An under-funded stimulus in 2009 and continued Congressional inaction on a jobs bill over the past five years have brought us to this point. Yes, the official unemployment rate is "down" to 6.7%. But we all know that when you add in underemployed part-time workers and those discouraged from looking for any job, the number is much higher. It's 13.1%. Therefore I am immediately sending to Congress for their action a jobs and training bill designed to remedy this sorry state of affairs. Infrastructure improvements - roads, bridges, tunnels, schools - will be a high priority. Assistance to city and state governments to hire teachers, police, and firefighters will also be provided. Jobs in the environmental sector to combat the coming effects of global warming - both in alternative energy industries and in developing engineering solutions to the problems that will face low-lying areas of our country. In addition, we are investing in a massive program of medical research to eliminate cancer in our lifetime. 

I am asking Congress to restore long-term unemployment benefits until this jobs, training and research program has its desired effect - an official unemployment rate no greater than 3%.   I am asking for a hike in the Federal minimum wage to $9.25 per hour to be automatically adjusted annually according to the rate of inflation. This will get us back to an equivalent minimum wage as we had in 1968. Also, I am signing an executive order tonight that will require government contracts to be awarded only to contractors who pay a living wage - $14.75/hour. This will allow a wage earner to support a four member household at 125% of the poverty line. I don't think anyone working a full-time job should live in poverty in this country. Finally I will veto any spending bill that comes to my desk that contains provisions for cuts in food stamps. To do so at this time while maintaining massive subsidies for agribusinesses is obscene.

And here's a message for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives - do something that actually helps the country recover from this recession. Vote against the Affordable Care Act all you like if it makes you feel good. As you and the rest of the country know, I will veto any such bill that makes it to my desk. But do something useful in the meantime. The above would be a modest start. Another item requiring your immediate attention is the immigration reform bill passed by the Senate back in June. If you can't think of anything better, just pass the bill from the Senate. It's not perfect but it is a start.

Our democracy is under attack. These attacks are not from any external threats but from the influence of money on elections and legislation and from the well-funded and organized attack on the right to vote. There is no greater, more distinguishing right in a democracy than the right to vote. I have therefore ordered the attorney general to contest voter id laws passed since 2010. We all know why these laws were passed - they are an attempt to disenfranchise minority, older, younger, and poorer voters. It is an assault against our democracy to deny up to 5 million citizens their right to vote. And don't give us any nonsense about voter fraud. That's about as common as shark attacks and you know it. We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any state or group to unfairly deny or threaten to deny any citizen his or her right to vote. In addition, I have requested that the Department of Health and Human Services fully comply with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires federal agencies providing public assistance to help voters get registered. Finally, we will introduce and work tirelessly for an amendment to the Constitution that will provide for public financing of all Federal elections and which will open the way for states to do the same. No longer will the money and interests of a few determine the direction our nation takes.

Under no circumstances will I allow the Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare programs to be threatened in a phony deficit crisis. These programs need to be strengthened not weakened. If any spending is to be cut, it will come from the military budget, which is vastly in excess of any rational needs for our defense. Effective immediately, I am ordering the dismantling of our nuclear arsenal and ask other nations possessing these weapons to do the same. All troops remaining in Afghanistan will be withdrawn as soon as safely practicable and we are immediately stopping all combat operations in that nation. In addition, I have requested the heads of the military branches to prepare base budgets for the coming two fiscal years that are, respectively, 25% and 50% below the current year's funding.

Our foreign policy will solely be one of humanitarian assistance. We seek no empire and respect the right of self-determination of the peoples of the world. The savings from the reduced military budget will be put to good use in an effort to eradicate disease and hunger world-wide.

We will no longer be arms dealers to the world and request that other nations do the same. We are stopping all military assistance programs. Arms merchants are being put on notice that providing arms for foreign conflicts will be treated as criminal behavior.

Other foreign policy objectives for 2014 are:

• a just and peaceful solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict - one that is consistent with international law and provides Palestinians with a viable homeland and Israel with peace
• an end to the Syrian Civil War
• an Iranian nuclear program monitored to ensure that it is for peaceful purposes and allowed as is their right as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Prolifertation Treaty
• an end to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Africa brought about by using our financial might to address the root causes of these conflicts
  
  

We will do all in our power to bring about these objectives in a peaceful manner consistent with the universal rights of man declared 65 years ago by the United Nations and the four freedoms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

Links

Calculation of the real unemployment rate

Five facts about our military budget

Sunday Roundup - October 5, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream corporate media.  Today we look at recent court decisions on voting rights, the Hong Kong protests, Syria, Israel's growing isolation, and Ebola.

Voting Rights (or lack thereof) 

As the US midterm elections draw near, voting rights proponents have sued in Federal court, contesting various voter suppression laws passed in Republican-controlled states.  With SCOTUS's gutting of the Voting Rights Act and their unleashing of unlimited campaign money by the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, the voter suppression laws are the third part of the shameful Troika of Plutocracy that promises to turn this year's election into the least democratic since the days of Jim Crow. As summarized by the Brennan Center for Justice: Since the 2010 election, new voting restrictions are slated to be in place in 22 states. Unless these restrictions are blocked — and there are court challenges to laws in six of those states — voters in nearly half the country could find it harder to cast a ballot in the 2014 midterm election than they did in 2010. The new laws range from photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to voter registration restrictions. Partisanship and race were key factors in this movement. Most restrictions passed through GOP-controlled legislatures and in states with increases in minority turnout.
Ohio - “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders,” Roberts wrote in the court’s main opinion in McCutcheon.  Evidently that right does not extend to minorities in Ohio without cash to throw into campaigns.  Think Progress reported on September 29:  ...the Supreme Court returned from its summer vacation for the “Long Conference,” the day when the justices consider the backlog of petitions asking them to hear cases that built up while they were away for the summer. Yet, despite the fact that the justices typically face hundreds of petitions that they must consider during this conference, five of them still found time on Monday to make it harder for Ohio residents to cast a vote. In a 5-4 decision that divided entirely along partisan lines, the Court allowed cuts to Ohio’s early voting days to go into effect. Notably, this decision came down just 16 hours before polling places were set to open in that state.
Wisconsin - The American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups are bringing Wisconsin's voter ID law to the Supreme Court.  Arguing that one in ten voters already registered in Wisconsin may not actually get to cast their ballots this year, civil rights and citizens’ advocacy groups asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to bar a new requirement to produce a photo ID before voting.  By a vote of five to five, a federal appeals court has permitted enforcement for this year’s general election, already underway with absentee voting.  The plea for the Supreme Court to step in now was filed with Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency filings from the geographic area that includes Wisconsin.  She can act on her own, or share the issue with her colleagues. [SCOTUS blog, October 2]
North Carolina - Several provisions of North Carolina's harsh voter suppression laws were struck down by a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.  It's now headed to the Supreme Court.  In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked provisions of a North Carolina voting law that would have ended same-day registration and eliminated the counting of votes cast outside one's precinct. But it left intact a lower court decision that affirmed the law's reducing the number of early voting days, expanding what can be done to challenge voters and eliminating the discretion of county election boards from adding an extra hour on election day in extraordinary circumstances. [Daily Kos, Oct 1]

Hong Kong

Photo is by AP and appeared in The Independent
The "Umbrella Revolution": Riot police launch tear gas into the crowd
 as thousands of protesters surround the government headquarters in Hong Kong

In another "democracy" story, the Hong Kong student protests sparked by the announcement of the 2017 election framework continued.  On Thursday the protesters were demanding the resignation of Hong Kong's Chief Executive Leung Chung-Ying as Beijing hardened its line on the protests.  Bolstered by a vote of confidence in the People's Daily, Leung shows no sign of resigning but has agreed to have a high ranking official in his administration meet with the protesters.  Speaking at the end of a fifth day of protests, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying refused to meet demonstrators’ demands to resign but said his top official, Carrie Lam, would hold a meeting with students to discuss political reforms...The protests represent the biggest challenge to Chinese rule over its special autonomous region since its handover from the UK in 1997. They were sparked by dissatisfaction over a framework handed down by Beijing for the election of Mr Leung’s successor in 2017. Under the model, candidates would have to achieve the support of at least 50 per cent of a 1,200-strong committee, which opponents say is stacked with Beijing loyalists.  [The Independent, Oct 2]  On Friday, The Guardian reported that  violent scuffles broke out in one of Hong Kong’s most famous and congested shopping districts..., as supporters of Chinese rule stormed tents and ripped down banners belonging to pro-democracy protesters.  [The Guardian, Oct 3]

Syria 

April 2014 Photo is from The Independent

The Syrian Civil War has been raging for 3-1/2 years. As of the end of August, more than 191,000 Syrians had been killed in the conflict.  More than 3,000,000 Syrians have sought refuge in other countries and 6,500,000 have been internally displaced.  Neither the government nor the rebels have been able to defeat the other side and the continuing flow of arms to both sides has only prolonged the conflict.  In a massive display of ignorance, the US Congress recently voted $500 million to arm and train the Syrian rebels.  Military experts and others warn that arming the rebels will embolden and inadvertently aid ISIS.  Writing in the Huffington Post on September 17 prior to the Congressional vote, Kate Gould and (retired) Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson warned "If Congress signs this check for the FSA, IS will help cash it. For years, IS has recruited former FSA fighters and seized weapons funneled to Iraq and Syria from the U.S. and other countries."  That this aid to the rebels will worsen the civil war is an obvious and foregone conclusion.  The organization Win Without War adds: "After more than a decade of war, it's clear that military force will not stop extremism in the region. Instead of dumping additional weapons into Syria, Congress should support alternatives to combat the threat of ISIS and to end the Syrian civil war."  The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) published an article by Yezid Sayigh that argues that, in the face of the growing power of Islamic State, now is the time to seek a truce in the Syrian Civil War.  Specifically Sayigh recommends that the two sides observe independent truces implemented in parallel.  This approach would not require a formal diplomatic agreement, just robust endorsement and timely coordination by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—the government’s and the opposition’s external backers that are most engaged in Iraq...Now is the moment for [these] three outside actors in particular...to pressure the regime and rebels alike to commit to separate unilateral truces, coordinating the process indirectly to ensure these are implemented in parallel.  A major advantage of this approach is that it sidesteps tortuous discussions about political preconditions and the status of the Syrian parties of the sort that rendered the otherwise commendable Geneva 1 communiqué of June 2012 stillborn.

Israel
Following on the heels of its brutal, war-crime-ridden assault on the Gaza Strip, the right-wing Israeli government announced its largest appropriation of Palestinian land in 30 years in September. Located as it is in the sensitive East Jerusalem area, the proposed settlement is one more indication of this government's lack of commitment to a just two-state solution and a viable Palestinian state.  Even the United States may have finally had enough of this intransigence.  Following a Wednesday meeting between President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu in which the 2600 home settlement was discussed, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said "The United States is deeply concerned by reports the Israeli government has moved forward" with planning for settlements in a "sensitive area" of East Jerusalem...Earnest said Israel would send a "very troubling message" by following through with the settlement project, and in noticeably blunt language said that the step was contrary to Israel's stated goal of negotiating a permanent final status agreement with the Palestinians.  "This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, [and] distance Israel from even its closest allies," Earnest said.  He added that it would also "poison the atmosphere" - not only with the Palestinians but with "the very Arab governments" with which Netanyahu had said he wanted to build relations.  All Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory are illegal under international law  [Al Jazeera, October 2]

The EU likewise condemned the Israeli plan, calling it “highly detrimental” to diplomatic efforts for Israeli-Palestinian peace.  Brussels called on Israel to “urgently reverse” actions leading to settlement expansion in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians hope to make the capital of a future state alongside Israel.  “This represents a further highly detrimental step that undermines prospects for a two-state solution and calls into question Israel’s commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians,” the EU’s diplomatic service said.  The housing units, which have been slated for construction since 2012 in the neighborhood of Givat Hamatos, were given final approval last week, according to the Peace Now watchdog. [Al-Arabiya/Agence France-Presse, October 3]

Meanwhile, Netanyahu was blaming the Israeli peace organization Peace Now for the United States' position on the new settlements, and he was appearing before the UN trying to conflate Hamas with ISIS.  It didn't work.  Nathan Brown, in a September 30 op-ed piece for CEIP, "Netanyahu's Convenient Lies About ISIS and Hamas", writes: Speaking at the General Assembly this week, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu repeated a refrain he has sounded for three decades (since his days as Israeli ambassador to the U.N.) — that all forms of terrorism are different sides of the same coin and have civilization as their target...But is it accurate? Well, yes of course — in the same sense that France’s François Hollande, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and Israel’s HaPoel Tel Aviv all spring from the same socialist movement. It’s not clear how such claims aid understanding, analysis or policy.  I'm not sure how to define terrorism.  Perhaps we should look at the number of civilian deaths, all of which are inexcusable and should be considered war crimes.  1462 civilians in Gaza were killed by Israeli firepower.  6 civilians were killed by Hamas' flying pipe bombs (referred to in the press as "rockets").   Seems that the IDF assault against Gaza did a pretty good job of terrorizing the impoverished and blockaded enclave.

Ebola
[Mother Jones, October 1] On Tuesday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States; the infected patient was a man who traveled from Liberia to visit family in Texas. It's the latest development in the ever-worsening outbreak of the virus, which so far has sickened more than 6,500 people and killed more than 3,000. The United States government has pledged to send help to West Africa to help stop Ebola from spreading—but the main agencies tasked with this aid work say they're hamstrung by budget cuts from the 2013 sequester.  Sequestration caused budget cuts in the National Institute of Health's budget affecting every area of medical research.  Cuts to international aid budgets and to USAID totaling $700 million affected the detection and containment of the disease.  Dr. Beth Bell of the CDC testifying before a Senate committee, argued that the epidemic could have been stopped if more had been done sooner to build global health security... "If even modest investments had been made to build a public health infrastructure in West Africa previously, the current Ebola epidemic could have been detected earlier, and it could have been identified and contained."
Update: On Friday, the World Health Organization reported the latest Ebola figures: 3,431 people killed by the disease out of 7,470 confirmed or suspected cases in west Africa

Voter Suppression 2014

"There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the voter Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit a franchise that we see today."  

- Former President Bill Clinton, July 2011

Besides the threat to democracy from the Roberts Court's decisions removing restrictions on campaign financing (Citizens United and McCutcheon), there is an even more blatant and direct threat in the numerous state laws aimed at suppressing voter turnout.  Republicans quickly realized after the 2008 election of Barack Obama that voter turnout was a key to his successful bid for the Presidency.  They began a widespread effort to suppress the vote in states that they held - starting with voter ID laws, then purging voter rolls, then making it more difficult to register, then reducing early and absentee voting and, then, Obama's initiative to make voting easier notwithstanding, making it more difficult for people to make it to the polls.  I don't think even Republicans believe their original canard of enacting these laws to "prevent voter fraud," which is less common than shark attacks.  The suppression of the vote is nothing less than an assault on the most basic democratic right. 

The Republican momentum towards this widespread denial of voting rights was well underway by the time of the 2012 elections.  Based on the Brennan Center for Justice's October 2011 analysis, the laws in place by year end 2011 would have made it "significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012." Even so, it was not enough to stop Obama's re-election.  Then in 2013, the Roberts Court gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act in Shelby County vs. Holder.  Encouraged by the ruling and now in control of several more state legislatures, the voter suppression effort was cranked up.  The worst voter suppression laws were passed in North Carolina the month after the Roberts Court's ruling.  As Ari Berman summarizes in his excellent article on the North Carolina law: "In short, the bill eliminates practically everything that encourages people to vote in North Carolina, replaced by unnecessary and burdensome new restrictions. At the same time, the bill expands the influence of unregulated corporate influence in state elections."  In 2013 alone, at least 93 new restrictive voting bills were introduced in 33 states.  [Brennan Center for Justice, Dec. 19, 2013] 

Dana Liebelson writing on April 9 for Mother Jones notes the absolute wrong-headedness of the Roberts Court's decison to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on the basis that "our country has changed," and that blanket federal protection wasn't needed to stop discrimination.  "States that were previously covered in some part by Section 5 moved quickly after it was invalidated." Besides North Carolina, the states of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina pushed through actions to restrict voting rights.  Liebelson continues: "We found that 8 of the 15 states [previously covered by the Voting Rights Act], or 53 percent, passed or implemented voting restrictions since June 25, compared to 3 of 35 states that were not covered under Section 5—or less than 9 percent. Additionally, a number of states not covered by the Voting Rights Act actually expanded voting rights in the same time period.  The three states not covered by the VRA that did pass restrictive laws after the decision (Kansas, Ohio, Wisconsin) are all in the hands of Republicans.  No surprise there.

In addition to the state level actions, action at the local level by politicians and operatives designed to discourage voting are also being implemented.  These actions or attempted actions range from moving polling places out of the reach of public transportation in minority districts  to attempts to squash voter registration efforts and absentee balloting to closing bathrooms at polling places.  Honestly, you just can't make this stuff up.

The road back to fairness will be a long one.  None of the Congressional efforts to restore voting rights have gone anywhere.  Being somewhat cynical, I wonder: why should any Republican support fairness in voting when the objective of their party's effort is to suppress the vote of traditionally Democratic voters? 

Some law suits have been filed - most notably in North Carolina where the ACLU and others filed in late March to overturn the voter suppression laws there.  "The suit specifically targets provisions of the law that eliminate a week of early voting, end same-day registration, and prohibit "out-of-precinct" voting. It seeks to stop North Carolina from enacting these provisions, arguing that they would unduly burden the right to vote and discriminate against African-American voters, in violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and the Voting Rights Act of 1965." [ACLU website]  The challenge is not expected to be heard until 2015, although the litigants may be able to get some provisions blocked before the 2014 midterms.  Texas and Virginia voter ID laws are also being challenged, while, on the opposite side, Arizona and Kansas are suing the Federal government "for the right to require people to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. A win for the states could not only make it much harder to register voters in those places.... It would also do major damage to Congress’s authority to establish minimum national standards for voting—a power that’s crucial for any effort to improve elections." [MSNBC, Jan 15]

There is no more basic right nor distinguishing feature of a democracy than the right to vote.  That right is now under attack and America is quickly losing its mantle as the chief supporter of democracy.  Let's hope we can regain some of the moral ground we have lost in the coming months and years. 

Sunday Roundup - August 31, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from outside the US corporate mainstream media.  Today we look at the Eurozone recession, discovery of traces of one of the first stars, the rise of ISIS, and Gaza.

Eurozone Recession
It's yet another reminder of the fallacy of deficit reduction and spending cuts in the midst of a recession. Unemployment in the Euro-zone remains high and it's not just a reflection of 25% unemployment in Greece and Spain. With the exception of Germany, none of the core European countries has had any recovery to speak of, with employment lower and unemployment substantially higher than before the crisis. The table below...shows the percentage change in GDP, employment and unemployment between the pre-crisis peak and the first quarter of 2014: 

(The Interpreter website, August 26)

Greece and Spain have been especially hard hit.  Speaking of the rampant unemployment in Greece, Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, in a blog for TheWorldPost, writes: The commitment to economic austerity policies by the "troika" - the European Central Bank, the European Commission, and the International Monetary Fund - hasn't wavered. Meanwhile, the country's unemployment rate has soared to yet another unexpected high. In a population of 9.3 million, 1.3 million are out of work....Employment has collapsed under measures demanded by the trio of lenders, and acquiesced to by three successive Greek governments. The trough is wider and longer than it was during the Great Depression...Greece has become a template for how an austerity regime crushes a workforce. The highest unemployment rate in Europe is the disastrous fallout of the world's most rigorously enforced fiscal tightening policy.  The solution? The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, which Papdimitriou leads, estimated what the outcomes would have been if Greece had enacted a broad employment program in 2012. Work would be dedicated to areas like physical and information infrastructure, the environment, social services, education, and culture.  At the low-midrange of the scale, Antonopoulos simulated the direct public creation of 300,000 jobs at today's wages. Multiplier effects - indirect results - increased the total gains to almost 400,000 mainly skilled positions. That is, government jobs would fuel the creation of those additional jobs in private industry.  Unemployment was reduced by roughly 30 percent. GDP rose about 4 percent.  Pointing out that jobs-targeted stimulus programs have succeeded worldwide in the past, Papadimitiou concludes: An international dialogue should begin now. It might open with an invitation to the Troika: Explain why Greece should not start a jobs guarantee policy today.

Traces of one of the first stars

The most massive stars in the early universe would eject material
 high in iron when they exploded. Astronomers can read the composition
 of the next generation of stars to determine what made up their ancestors.Credit: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
(Image appeared in the space.com article)

A team working at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan has detected traces of one of the first stars formed in the early universe.  An ancient star in the halo surrounding the Milky Way galaxy appears to contain traces of material released by the death of one of the universe's first stars...The chemical signature of the ancient star suggests that it incorporated material blasted into space by a supernova explosion that marked the death of a huge star in the early universe — one that may have been 200 times more massive than the sun. The first stars in the cosmos, known as Population III stars, formed from the hydrogen and helium that dominated the early universe. Computer simulations suggest that the first stars formed 100 million to 250 million years after the Big Bang - or about 13.5 billion years ago.  Although massive first generation stars no longer exist, their descendants do.  Scientists studying the composition of a 13 billion year-old, second generation star just 1,000 light years from Earth determined that it was formed from the material blown off of a single massive ancient star.  [space.com, August 21]

The Rise of ISIS
The Democracy Now! website posted two interviews in August on the rise of ISIS.  

One is an interview with Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College and a columnist for Frontline, where he has been writing extensively about Islamic State.  There’s a very dangerous game going on here, both from Hillary Clinton, from the Republicans, from Tony Blair. They want to make the case that the Islamic State is a child of the Syrian war. They want to deny the fact that the Islamic State has its roots fundamentally in the destruction of the Iraqi state by the American invasion in 2003. You know, it’s very easy to destroy a state. It took the Iraqi people over a hundred years to build institutions; that was destroyed by the Americans in an afternoon. Once you destroy the state, you create a vacuum. For the first time on Iraqi soil, one saw al-Qaeda groups come in, and that was in 2004, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was a Jordanian militant, comes into Tal Afar and creates al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. You know, even bin Laden found him to be a bit unpalatable, because he was deeply sectarian and extraordinarily violent. The Americans tried to crush al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, but by 2006, despite the big surge, despite the bombing of Fallujah, Ramadi—you know, names that the American public now are quite familiar with—despite the razing of these cities, the Islamic State was born in 2006. It’s not yesterday’s creation. This was a product of the Iraq War. [Democracy Now!, August 25]

The second interview is with Patrick Cockburn, the Middle East correspondent for The Independent. Addressing the nonsense in Hillary Clinton's statements in her Atlantic interview, he writes: The idea, which is very widespread, that there was a moment that, with a few more guns and ammunition, that a moderate Syrian opposition could have taken over in Syria in 2011 or '12 or ’13, is just unreal. There are 14 provincial capitals of Syria. Assad held all of them until last year, when he lost one of them, Raqqa, to ISIS, not to any of these moderates. These moderates are an endangered species on the battlefields of Syria. The opposition is now dominated—military opposition is dominated by ISIS. They hold a third of the country. But the other military opposition are people like Jabhat al-Nusra, which is the official representative of al-Qaeda, of bin Laden's al-Qaeda, and some other jihadi organizations. So this is sort of fantasy that there was a moderate Syrian military opposition which, with a bit more support from Obama, could have taken power in Damascus. It was never going to happen. [Democracy Now!, August 13]

Gaza
The seven-week war against Gaza has stopped with the announcement Tuesday of an indefinite ceasefire.  As reported in The Guardian on August 26: The war in Gaza ended on Tuesday after Israel and the Palestinians agreed to halt fighting indefinitely, putting an end to seven weeks of catastrophic loss of life and destruction, but on terms which are likely to leave many on both sides of the conflict wondering what was achieved.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad – the main militant groups in Gaza – the Palestinian Authority and Israel agreed on an open-ended ceasefire beginning at 7pm on Tuesday evening....The terms of the deal – brokered by the Egyptian government, and reached on the 50th day of the conflict – appeared to be almost identical to those agreed at the end of the previous war 21 months ago. Israel will open crossings on its border to allow humanitarian aid and construction materials to enter Gaza, and will extend the permitted fishing zone to six miles off the coast of Gaza. The Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt is also to be opened.

The Palestinian death toll is currently over 2,100 - 2,104 according to UN sources; 2,133 according to an article in The Guardian.  Wounded Palestinians number 10,890.  At least 70 percent of the Palestinian deaths were civilians.  The Israeli death toll is 70, including 6 civilians.  

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is coming to be more defined but the final tally will require weeks.  After being blockaded for seven years, 80% of Gazans were already receiving humanitarian aid prior to the war.  Here are some of the latest assessments of the post-war situation in Gaza:

As the ceasefire allows for more in-depth sectoral assessments to be conducted, it is clear that the scale of damage is unprecedented, with approximately 13 per cent of the housing stock affected. Five per cent of the housing stock is uninhabitable - an estimated 18,000 housing units have been either destroyed or severely damaged, leaving more than 108,000 people homeless. This is in addition to the pre-crisis housing deficit of 71,000 housing units, due to people living in overcrowded or inadequate conditions. The provision of temporary housing solutions to these people is one of the major challenges facing the local authorities and the humanitarian community in the coming period. [1]

Despite extensive repairs, electricity outages of 18 hours a day continue in most areas across Gaza. [1]

Only 10 per cent of the population have potable running water available daily. [1]

More than 1,000 children will suffer lifelong disabilities [2]

Water and sanitation: ...180,000 people have limited access to water. The lack of electricity and fuel also restrict water supply. The UN and other agencies are concerned about the risk of diseases related to lack of access to water. In fact, thousands of people live in overcrowded schools, shelters. This, coupled with the lack of water and poor sanitation, poses serious epidemic risks. [2]

Medical services and supplies:  serious shortages of drugs and medical supplies hamper health benefits, particularly those related to emergencies, surgical procedures and intensive care units. The 29 hospitals working, manage with backup generators require fuel. 15 hospitals and 16 health centres damaged require reconstruction. The lack of specialized surgeons limits medical support to the injured. [2]

Psychological damage: At least 373,000 children need psychosocial support. Thousands of ERW (explosive remnants of war) are in built-up areas, posing a significant risk to children, farmers, aid workers and internally displaced people returning home. [2]

[1] OCHA Situation Report, August 28 
[2] Independent Catholic News, August 27

Related
Humanitarian agencies warn of imminent water crisis in Gaza [MondoWeiss, July 23]
Israel War Aftermath: Epidemic feared in Gaza sheltering centers as skin infections spread [Informed Comment, August 28]

Top 5 Myths About the War Against Gaza
Hopefully, the ceasefire will last and the blockade of Gaza will eventually be lifted.  In the meantime, as some "news" agencies try to shift the responsibility for the destruction of Gaza and try to downplay or excuse the extent of civilian casualties, here are some facts to keep in front of you.  

True or False:

(1) Hamas' increased rocket attacks against Israel initiated the 2014 war.
False: The hostilities began with the targeted assassination of at least six members of Hamas and the arrest of 400 Palestinians.  To justify their attacks against Hamas and the arrests, Israel implicated Hamas in what was the action of a lone operator - the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers.  Even the Israeli government, having captured the perpetrator and destroyed his home, now admits this.

(2) The Israeli blockade violates international law.
True: Numerous human rights groups, including UN agencies, have spoken out against this collective punishment.  The European Union and the British Parliament have gone on record as asking for an end to the blockade.  Even some in the US media are beginning to agree: What Israel is doing in Gaza now is collective punishment. It is punishment for Gaza’s refusal to be a docile ghetto. It is punishment for the gall of Palestinians in unifying, and of Hamas and other factions in responding to Israel’s siege and its provocations with resistance, armed or otherwise, after Israel repeatedly reacted to unarmed protest with crushing force. Despite years of ceasefires and truces, the siege of Gaza has never been lifted. [The New Yorker, July 29]

(3) The Israeli blockade has devastated the economy in Gaza.

True: A 2012 UN report, when the blockade was just entering its 6th year, notes:

34% of Gaza’s workforce, including over half its youth, is unemployed.

44% of Gazans are food insecure and about 80% are aid recipients. 

In 2011, the GDP per capita was almost 17% below the equivalent figure in 2005, before the last Palestinian elections.

In 2011 less than one truckload of goods per day exited Gaza, less than 3% the average amount of exports during the first half of 2007.

35% of Gaza’s farmland and 85% of its fishing waters are totally or partially inaccessible due to Israeli imposed restrictions.

(4) Hamas overthrew the Palestinian Authority in Gaza in 2007.

False: Hamas came to power in the Occupied Territory of Gaza and the West Bank in the legislative elections of January, 2006. They won 76 of 132 legislative seats and a unity government was formed.  Subsequent maneuverings by Israel and the United States returned Fatah / the Palestinian Authority to power in the West Bank.  The Battle of Gaza (June 10-15, 2007) was a conflict in the struggle for power in Gaza between Fatah and Hamas.  Fatah could not dislodge Hamas.  Hamas fighters took control of the Gaza Strip and removed Fatah officials. The battle resulted in the dissolution of the unity government and the division of the Palestinian territories into two entities, the West Bank governed by the Palestinian National Authority, and Gaza governed by Hamas. The Israeli blockade began.

(5) The United States opposed the UN's Goldstone Report, which investigated war crimes committed during the Gaza War of 2009 ("Operation Cast Lead").

True:  The 574-page fact-finding report was opposed by the US Ambassador to the UN and the US Congress.  One can only wonder if the present war against Gaza would have occurred had those responsible for the war crimes documented in the Goldstone Report been held accountable at the time.  "Operation Cast Lead" resulted in the deaths of 1417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.  Of the Palestinian deaths, 926 were non-combatants and 255 were police officers killed at police stations and not participating in hostilities.  Of the Israeli deaths, 3 were non-combatants.